Colonel Harry Riley, USA Ret, Chairman of EaglesUp has a message for America. You can read that message on the EagleUp website.

Chris Hill, National Director of Gathering of Eagles has this message:

All of us remember St. Patrick's Day, 2007. It was blustery, cold, bitter and just about perfect. The time has come to revisit that emotion. Those that would disparage our brave men and women in uniform are planning to congregate in our nation's Capital once again this coming March. On March 15, 2008, Gathering of Eagles, in coordination with Move America Forward, Freedom's Watch, The Band of Mothers, Vets for Freedom, DC Protest Warrior, Eagles Up, Free Republic, New England Warrior and rank and file patriotic Americans, will come together to Support Our Troops and their in-theater commander, General David Petraeus. Under the banner AMERICANS STANDING UP, we will gather to face down the associated groups who are against everything we hold dear. We will stand united, wave Old Glory and remind them that they do not speak for us, nor most Americans. We encourage you all to join us in Washington, DC. It is time to once again take back the streets and remind all those people in their living rooms that there are people who think like them. It is time to once again, remind the nation that our brave volunteers in uniform have earned our support. The Surge is working. The tide has turned.

The organization Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) has aligned itself with elements of the extreme left in our country and is preparing to besmirch and degrade the efforts of our brave men and women serving in the military by accusing them of atrocities similar to the way John eFfing sKerry accused our Viet Nam veterans of atrocities.

No one stood up to the VVAW then, but we will stand up now against the lies and disinformation of this generations' Winter Soldier.

If you are a veteran of Iraq or Afghanistan we need your help one more time.

We will present a positive message about your efforts to bring peace and freedom to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, but we need you to stand with us to show America the face of dedication, commitment, and honor.

Join us on 15 March 2008 as we show America the true face of the American Warrior.

How North Vietnam Won The War The Wall Street Journal, Thursday August 3, 1995

What did the North Vietnamese leadership think of the American antiwar movement? What was the purpose of the Tet Offensive? How could the U.S. have been more successful in fighting the Vietnam War? Bui Tin, a former colonel in the North Vietnamese army, answers these questions in the following excerpts from an interview conducted by Stephen Young, a Minnesota attorney and human-rights activist. Bui Tin, who served on the general staff of North Vietnam's army, received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975. He later became editor of the People's Daily, the official newspaper of Vietnam. He now lives in Paris, where he immigrated after becoming disillusioned with the fruits of Vietnamese communism.

Question: How did Hanoi intend to defeat the Americans?

Answer: By fighting a long war which would break their will to help South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh said, "We don't need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out."

Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?

A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.

Q: Did the Politburo pay attention to these visits?

A: Keenly.

Q: Why?

A: Those people represented the conscience of America. The conscience of America was part of its war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor. America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win.

Q: How could the Americans have won the war?

A: Cut the Ho Chi Minh trail inside Laos. If Johnson had granted [Gen. William] Westmoreland's requests to enter Laos and block the Ho Chi Minh trail, Hanoi could not have won the war.

Q: Anything else?

A: Train South Vietnam's generals. The junior South Vietnamese officers were good, competent and courageous, but the commanding general officers were inept.

Q: Did Hanoi expect that the National Liberation Front would win power in South Vietnam?

A: No. Gen. [Vo Nguyen] Giap [commander of the North Vietnamese army] believed that guerrilla warfare was important but not sufficient for victory. Regular military divisions with artillery and armor would be needed. The Chinese believed in fighting only with guerrillas, but we had a different approach. The Chinese were reluctant to help us. Soviet aid made the war possible. Le Duan [secretary general of the Vietnamese Communist Party] once told Mao Tse-tung that if you help us, we are sure to win; if you don't, we will still win, but we will have to sacrifice one or two million more soldiers to do so.

Q: Was the National Liberation Front an independent political movement of South Vietnamese?

A: No. It was set up by our Communist Party to implement a decision of the Third Party Congress of September 1960. We always said there was only one party, only one army in the war to liberate the South and unify the nation. At all times there was only one party commissar in command of the South.

Q: Why was the Ho Chi Minh trail so important?

A: It was the only way to bring sufficient military power to bear on the fighting in the South. Building and maintaining the trail was a huge effort, involving tens of thousands of soldiers, drivers, repair teams, medical stations, communication units.

Q: What of American bombing of the Ho Chi Minh trail?

A: Not very effective. Our operations were never compromised by attacks on the trail. At times, accurate B-52 strikes would cause real damage, but we put so much in at the top of the trail that enough men and weapons to prolong the war always came out the bottom. Bombing by smaller planes rarely hit significant targets.

Q: What of American bombing of North Vietnam?

A: If all the bombing had been concentrated at one time, it would have hurt our efforts. But the bombing was expanded in slow stages under Johnson and it didn't worry us. We had plenty of times to prepare alternative routes and facilities. We always had stockpiles of rice ready to feed the people for months if a harvest were damaged. The Soviets bought rice from Thailand for us.

Q: What was the purpose of the 1968 Tet Offensive?

A: To relieve the pressure Gen. Westmoreland was putting on us in late 1966 and 1967 and to weaken American resolve during a presidential election year.

Q: What about Gen. Westmoreland's strategy and tactics caused you concern?

A: Our senior commander in the South, Gen. Nguyen Chi Thanh, knew that we were losing base areas, control of the rural population and that his main forces were being pushed out to the borders of South Vietnam. He also worried that Westmoreland might receive permission to enter Laos and cut the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

In January 1967, after discussions with Le Duan, Thanh proposed the Tet Offensive. Thanh was the senior member of the Politburo in South Vietnam. He supervised the entire war effort. Thanh's struggle philosophy was that "America is wealthy but not resolute," and "squeeze tight to the American chest and attack." He was invited up to Hanoi for further discussions. He went on commercial flights with a false passport from Cambodia to Hong Kong and then to Hanoi. Only in July was his plan adopted by the leadership. Then Johnson had rejected Westmoreland's request for 200,000 more troops. We realized that America had made its maximum military commitment to the war. Vietnam was not sufficiently important for the United States to call up its reserves. We had stretched American power to a breaking point. When more frustration set in, all the Americans could do would be to withdraw; they had no more troops to send over.

Tet was designed to influence American public opinion. We would attack poorly defended parts of South Vietnam cities during a holiday and a truce when few South Vietnamese troops would be on duty. Before the main attack, we would entice American units to advance close to the borders, away from the cities. By attacking all South Vietnam's major cities, we would spread out our forces and neutralize the impact of American firepower. Attacking on a broad front, we would lose some battles but win others. We used local forces nearby each target to frustrate discovery of our plans. Small teams, like the one which attacked the U.S. Embassy in Saigon, would be sufficient. It was a guerrilla strategy of hit-and-run raids.

Q: What about the results?

A: Our losses were staggering and a complete surprise;. Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for re-election. The second and third waves in May and September were, in retrospect, mistakes. Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out by all the fighting in 1968. It took us until 1971 to re-establish our presence, but we had to use North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. If the American forces had not begun to withdraw under Nixon in 1969, they could have punished us severely. We suffered badly in 1969 and 1970 as it was.

Q: What of Nixon?

A: Well, when Nixon stepped down because of Watergate we knew we would win. Pham Van Dong [prime minister of North Vietnam] said of Gerald Ford, the new president, "he's the weakest president in U.S. history; the people didn't elect him; even if you gave him candy, he doesn't dare to intervene in Vietnam again." We tested Ford's resolve by attacking Phuoc Long in January 1975. When Ford kept American B-52's in their hangers, our leadership decided on a big offensive against South Vietnam.

Q: What else?

A: We had the impression that American commanders had their hands tied by political factors. Your generals could never deploy a maximum force for greatest military effect.

It is my opinion that our Troops won this war. It is the people who stayed home who lost the war. We lost our resolve and tied the hands of our politicians. If we would have kept our resolve and let the politicians make the decisions necessary to win, it would have been over sooner with less men paying the price.

We must not allow this to happen again. We must stand behind our Troops and their leaders. We must allow our leaders to do what is necessary to win the war. We must not allow the commie traitors to steal our resolve away again. I say stand we must stand a post for our Troops and this can be done in March in Washington DC.

God bless our Troops and their commanders.

15
posted on 12/26/2007 9:15:28 AM PST
by do the dhue
(They've got us surrounded again. The poor bastards. General Creighton Abrams)

If you weren't in DC on St. Patrick's Day 2007 to kick the lefties' butts (verbally, of course), you missed one Helluva great commemoration of the Saint who drove the serpents out of my ancestral home.

Don't miss this one coming up March 15, 2008. Ahhh, the Ides of March.

So, which leftist bastard will play the role of Caesar? Not literally, but politically.

Make your plans now. All hands will be needed. Our troops, and our country need you, one more time.

My personal choice. I have owned two over the past 10 years, and they work great in all kinds of weather. My original one I gave to a Freeper who needed it for his own "good works," and I bought myself a replacement because I was so happy with the way it performed.

One correction, 15 March is a Saturday. I hope you can make it too. We need as many Patriots as we can get.

I was looking at the school calendar and they have Saturday in the place where Friday usually is on a traditional calendar. I corrected it on my post.

I'll try to be there, concretebob and I'll make an effort to rally as many people that I can to come with me to the Gathering of Eagles. Please, if you get inquiries from folks in Rochester, NY, send them my way!

I have been reading the words of Hal Moore at http://www.lzxray.com/battle.htm. He was a great leader and I am sure it was an honor to serve with him. I was just watching some of the video there.

I am damn proud of all you men who served in Nam. I am ashamed of the people, media, and traitors who robbed our intrepid Troops of victory and the people of Vietnam of their freedom. I am truly sorry for that, but I am not responsible. I was born in 66.

All I can do today is fight the ideology here at home. And I will not waver, tire, falter, or fail our Troops. This is my promise to you Vets who served in Vietnam and our Troops fighting the WOT.

43
posted on 12/27/2007 10:50:43 PM PST
by do the dhue
(They've got us surrounded again. The poor bastards. General Creighton Abrams)

BTW, tiggles made that sign. She made most of the big signs we've used through the years. For that we are forever grateful! If their march route takes them across the bridge towards the cemetery again we'll be there waiting. I'll also have my other signs:

AL QAEDA APPEASERS ON PARADE

ANTI-WAR PEACENIKS - FREEDOM'S PARASITES

YOU NEVER MARCHED AGAINST THE TERRORISTS

WE'RE AT WAR - LIBERLS ROOT FOR THE ENEMY

49
posted on 12/28/2007 6:55:09 AM PST
by BufordP
(Had Mexicans flown planes into the World Trade Center, Jorge Bush would have surrendered.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.